im just looking for a 1024x 1024 texture pack. if there arent any, link me to the highest res possible please.
Thx so much
A texture pack of that size, even if it were possible, would lag like crazy. The reason I've avoided creating even 128x packs is that I've found they are laggy and I have a pretty decent computer spec:
im just looking for a 1024x 1024 texture pack. if there arent any, link me to the highest res possible please.
Thx so much
A texture pack of that size, even if it were possible, would lag like crazy. The reason I've avoided creating even 128x packs is that I've found they are laggy and I have a pretty decent computer spec:
Each mob texture is loaded as a single texture into the graphics hardware so it could go up to 4096x4096 in theory.
Though why you would want to do that is beyond me. At that resolution you would have texels that are less than one pixel across even when you are French kissing a creeper on a massive monitor. (And honestly, who want's to French kiss creepers?) Basically, you would be wasting memory for no gain because the monster models are not big enough to make use of all that detail. You would need a creeper big enough that you could hollow it out and live in it to appreciate the extra detail in a texture that size.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
Anything higher than 32x looks like complete **** and doesn't fit in, Bropaint as an exception. More high res texture packs should be more like that. Who likes looking at more pixelated blobs?
Personal opinion in personalty opinionated.
Point being everyone has differant taste. I myself love LB Photo at 256 quite a bit. Aza's Arid pack is also very nice at 128. i dont like how anything under 64X looks but im not about to sit here on my high horse and say it looks like ass.
Quote from TE5LA »
A texture pack of that size, even if it were possible, would lag like crazy. The reason I've avoided creating even 128x packs is that I've found they are laggy and I have a pretty decent computer spec:
With specs like that you should be able to run it at 256. i have a GTX 460 which in bench marks is slightly slower than a 285, i also run a quad core. An i7 920 it's only clocked to 2.6 Ghz. only thing i have over you is ram. i have 9 gigs of it. but i have yet to even use half of it on minecraft. It puzzles me. =/
There are many 128 texture packs. A 1024x1024 isn't physically possible at the moment, but if you click the link in my sig I have a really well done 128 pack and I'm working on the highest possible res pack at the moment. (256x256)
Wasn't there a 512x version of your texture pack?
OP: 512x is the biggest resolution that any mods can make minecraft support for now. Just google "512x texture pack minecraft"
Well, I have a badass computer. I built it myself. Anyways, there are modified versions of Minecraft that allow 1024x1024. For example spoutcraft allows this. I'm going to try it to test if my computer can get down from it's 862 FPS. Just gonna make each pixel 5 times it size.
Is there any 1024x1024 or maby 2048x2048 texture packs available now?
cause i want to have better than 512x512 packs since my pc can handle that just fine.
Fool Minecraft doesn't care you Processor or Video much ! He needs Ram, and you have just 4 GB I'm playing with 512x512 ! And with 4GB ram (I bet minus OS and programms) its just 2GB free ram so 64x64 are the best you can dream of !
I would be realy happy for 1024x1024 texture pack release!
Haha, i have 8 gb now and i managed with technical launcher and everything maxed out to push 5.6 gb ram usage of java with 512x512 pack. But my pc froze and lagged like hell
And btw, yes, the java is driven for the most by the cpu, and also of the gpu for the textures and video process. But uses the ram to have the loaded landscape on.
No, because of the limitations of the CODING of minecraft anything higher than about 720x cannot be run. People with professional grade computer (ie computer built for very intense video and 3d rendering among other things) have tested this. Basically minecraft would have to be pretty much overhauled for this to work.
The main problem is that all the terrain textures are held in a single image unlike other games that split them up. Because of this minecraft has to hold a much larger image in it's cache than other games requiring much more RAM. It's a gross inefficiency that will most likely not be overcome by computing power. Especially since minecraft becomes more and more RAM and cpu intensive with every update.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Look, I don't care if your 8 or 20. If you can't take criticism or opinions, then get off the internet." -Stronghold257
Well I don't agree I just tested texture pack with 1024x1024 & 2048x2048 texture ! Well first of all you need at least 40 inches monitor other ways you eyes will pop out ! Anyway my 8x Core 4.1 Ghz processor doesn't even fill it meanwhile he eats 8 - 12 Ram (depends on what are you doing how high are graphic and how much frames can you Video card handle out !
I'm not too sure. Last I heard, Minecraft isn't designed to take use of multi-core functionality. Also, it's ridiculous to have more pixels in one area than the eye can visibly see.
Mods, please lock this thread like the old one? Thanks in advance
A texture pack of that size, even if it were possible, would lag like crazy. The reason I've avoided creating even 128x packs is that I've found they are laggy and I have a pretty decent computer spec:
Phenom Quad Core, 4 GB, Nvidia GX-285 graphics, 10,000 rpm drive.
So I'm working on 64x.
I can run a 128x. Not really a 256x, but if I had to run a 1024x (umad?) my laptop would crash and burn before Minecraft even loads. for you my man.
It would actually be about the graphics card mostly, probably 5GB of RAM though.
If you read the info section he says how big the mob textures he made are.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1021&t=288250
Each mob texture is loaded as a single texture into the graphics hardware so it could go up to 4096x4096 in theory.
Though why you would want to do that is beyond me. At that resolution you would have texels that are less than one pixel across even when you are French kissing a creeper on a massive monitor. (And honestly, who want's to French kiss creepers?) Basically, you would be wasting memory for no gain because the monster models are not big enough to make use of all that detail. You would need a creeper big enough that you could hollow it out and live in it to appreciate the extra detail in a texture that size.
Personal opinion in personalty opinionated.
Point being everyone has differant taste. I myself love LB Photo at 256 quite a bit. Aza's Arid pack is also very nice at 128. i dont like how anything under 64X looks but im not about to sit here on my high horse and say it looks like ass.
With specs like that you should be able to run it at 256. i have a GTX 460 which in bench marks is slightly slower than a 285, i also run a quad core. An i7 920 it's only clocked to 2.6 Ghz. only thing i have over you is ram. i have 9 gigs of it. but i have yet to even use half of it on minecraft. It puzzles me. =/
Vector Pack
Preview image he posted:
Sphax PureBDCraft
Note: This pack claims to support the aether mod with 512x512 textures for the aether blocks.
Nature's Lust Pack
These are the only packs I know of on the forums. Hope this helps OP!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/127377-16x-32x-64x-128x-256x173-lb-photo-realism-update-for-the-rpg-pack/
After looking at the past post saying 512x is impossible and packs above 32x ruins MC's looks makes me laugh. I could use a good laugh.
Wasn't there a 512x version of your texture pack?
OP: 512x is the biggest resolution that any mods can make minecraft support for now. Just google "512x texture pack minecraft"
LB RPG realism: http://minecraft-forum.omgforum.net/t360-lb-rpg-512x512
LB photo realism: http://www.fileplanet.com/219188/210000/fileinfo/Minecraft---LB-Photo-Realism-256x256-Pack-Mod
:biggrin.gif:
cause i want to have better than 512x512 packs since my pc can handle that just fine.
Haha, i have 8 gb now and i managed with technical launcher and everything maxed out to push 5.6 gb ram usage of java with 512x512 pack. But my pc froze and lagged like hell
And btw, yes, the java is driven for the most by the cpu, and also of the gpu for the textures and video process. But uses the ram to have the loaded landscape on.
The main problem is that all the terrain textures are held in a single image unlike other games that split them up. Because of this minecraft has to hold a much larger image in it's cache than other games requiring much more RAM. It's a gross inefficiency that will most likely not be overcome by computing power. Especially since minecraft becomes more and more RAM and cpu intensive with every update.
...
mspaint.exe....
Anyways, I think someone made a 1024x1024 pack once, just to show off. I'm probably wrong though.
I'm not too sure. Last I heard, Minecraft isn't designed to take use of multi-core functionality. Also, it's ridiculous to have more pixels in one area than the eye can visibly see.
Mods, please lock this thread like the old one? Thanks in advance